Mein Kampf Fuhrer und der Grasshopper

Mein Kampf - Grasshopper. To prove you have achieved Enlightenment you must answer three of the vorlds kreat mysteries.
Grasshopper - Umm ...what?
Mein Kampf - First. Does das Bear crap in der voods ?
Grasshopper - Umm, is it a Polar Bear, is it a Bear in a zoo ? Is it a teddy Bear ?
Mein Kampf - Nein nien nien Dumkopf ! Zie anzer ist Jah. Sie Bear craps in ser voods.
Mein Kampf - Next - Ist Der Pope , Catholic ?
Grasshopper - Hmmm umm ... well he lives in the Vatican... he is revered by millions of Catholics... yes... I think the pope is Catholic.
Mein Kampf - Whew zank gott in Himmel zie dumkopf got one.
Mein Kampf - Last qvestion, Vhy dit sie chicken crosses der road.
Grasshopper- thats easy. Because the chicken has three legs.
Mein Kampf - Shiskopf zat ist sie stupid most ting I am ever hearing.
Grasshopper - but Fuhrer. My chicken has three legs and he loves crossing the road.
Mein Kampf - Nein ! You haf not found der Enlightenment. Hop to sie back of der class.
You haf screwed mitt mein inner peace und harmony und haf pissed me off. I zink I am tiret of zis whole Third Reich / Taoism fusion tink.

[MEIN KAMPF]

the Stranger: How would you describe the last post ?

Mein Kampf: Trash.

The Stranger: Why is it? …Does it offended us and that is why you considered to be trash?

Mein Kampf: It lacks any value…It has no legitimate purpose other than to make fun of others, is a form of character assassination. When you make another person to look idiotic. One things is to write in here with the intent to make a positive contribution, another one is to white in here in order to destroy. The last poster did not contributed in anyway to our understanding of our profesion of our departamental drama. This is just the same ongoing spewing of poison that goes around. Therefore is trash.

The Stranger: But the poster copied our diatribe!

Main Kampf: Yes, that is true, the poster lacks originality. It has to mimic others.

The Stranger: But you yourself hold that there is not problem in copying others! In fact, you teaches that to copy others sometimes is a sign of humility and wisdom. You based this in the success of Scipio against Hannibal during the Punic Wars!

Mein Kampf: That is different. Scipio had to copy Hannibal tactics in order to defend Rome from Hannibal’s attack on the city. Scipio was wise and humble enough to realized that Hannibal although a barbarian, was a serious military genius capable to destroy Rome. This is one of the most brilliant episodes of the Ancient World, Hannibal intended to take war into the heartland of the Romans (something that no one ever attempted before) …Take the war into Rome itself! While Hannibal was at the doorsteps of Rome, Scipio responded by taking the war into the heartland of the Carthaginians, to Carthage itself (Hannibal’s motherland)! At the end Scipio won and Hannibal was defeated. This poster, isn’t imitating our diatribe in order to “save” anything or to bring a positive contribution to this forum or this profession per se…this is just lack of originality and creativity that’s all.

The Stranger: Maybe the posters sees himself as a savior who is trying to save the department from our evil influence, in this case, he would qualify as a Scipio type.

Mein Kampf: In this case our “evil influence” in the department has to be proven and not just to be accepted as face value. Perhaps, you and I and many others like us, are the true saviours (Scipios)as we save the department from these type of individuals ‘evil influences”.

The Stranger: Do you concider ourself to be “savior” type ?

Mein Kampf: Never! I am just stablishing that he has no right to say that he fills a Scipio figure type. and this is why he has no right to copy our style of diatribe. Not until he proof that A- we are a bad influence for the department and that B- he is the right influence for the department. Until then, he had no legitimacy to claim a Scipio type of figure. His copying is just trash. Lol

The Stranger: At least he has “Art” in his copying. He created a dialogue!

Mein Kampf: Well now the question is what is “Art”. This is a historical debate that we wouldn’t settle in here. I see Art as a Contribution to humanity.

The Stranger: I reject that, I see “Art” as an expression of humanity and not just as a contribution. In my view the last poster is an Artist. At least this I grant him, he created a dialogue! Science is a contribution to Humanity, Art is just an Expression.

Mein Kampf: As I said it before dear Stranger, we are not going to agree in this issue right here. If Art is merely an “expression of humanity’ then any “expression” should be considered as “Art” even those things that elicits in us rejection and are unworthy of praise would be considered as “Art” as well. Science is a contribution to humanity, but Art is also another contribution of humanity. True "Art" would never debase humanity, on the contrary, it would exalt humanity! But in all and all, I would not consider the last post as “Art”. Lacks contribution.

The Stranger: How about a “bad Art” then? No even that?

Mein Kampf: No even that Stranger. If it is “bad Art” then it would be Art but in a lesser degree. The last Post is not Art in any form of it. Is just trash period.

The Stranger: Let me see if I got it right: it doesn’t contribute to anything positive, it lacks legitimate ground as to why to imitate us and isn’t even Art, therefore you sustain that is nothing else than trash?

Mein Kampf: You got it right!

The Stranger: Then should be deleted!

Main Kampf: No! leave it in there 1rst as a reminder of the kind of people that we have to deal with in our department and 2nd as an example of what is trash.

The Stranger: Good point!

Grasshopper : Fuhrer, did you read the reply to our post ?
Mein Kampf : Jah Ich haf readed it.
Grasshopper : It said our post was not art, not intellectual *sniffle* not positive...
Mein Kampf : Und der trash, Jah jah vas ist du point ?
Grasshopper : Then why did we write it ?
Mein Kampf : For to haffing fun und laffing mien kline grasshoppper.
Grasshopper: fuhrer, are Mein Kampf and the Stranger really two persons?
Mein Kampf: Nein Grasshopper, ein person mit swie perzonalities. Dis ist called,Das split perzonality disorder und is ein mental problem discussed by mien froyned Dr. Freud.
Grasshopper: Well then should we help him?
Mein Kampf : nein, Ich think nicht.
Grasshopper: Should we feel sorry for him?
Mein Kampf: Nein nein Ich bin cold blooda und shallow.
Grasshopper: well what do we do then?
Mein Kampf: Das ist simple. wie write silly trash und pokeing fun at him :)

[MEIN KAMPF]

The true identity of Mein Kampf has already being discussed in these posts. He is the “striving men”. Engaged in his own existential fight in order to survive Life as it has being giving to him and as he has chosen it to live it and to live as a fallen creature in a fallen world. He is convinced that The greatest issue of ourselves ....is ourselves.

He doesn’t endorse The Third Reich philosophy, neither the anti-Semitism spewed in the historical “Mein Kampf”. He uses this screen name as a pseudonym to post his posts. And not as a cover up.

Then we have “The Stranger”- this figure isn’t less significant. He is taken from the nobel prize Albert Camus. Camus was a French existentialist, writer and mathematician (?) who died in a car crash in the late 60’s (?) he wrote a novel called The Stranger.

The idea of an stranger suggest to us an unknown person. Like someone who walks into a room and behave with a fresh familiarity that makes us fell uncomfortable. No one knows him and yet, he seems familiar with his surroundings.

Camus, created this character and at the end of the book the question before us is “who is the stranger?” The Stranger is none other than the main character of his novel! That one we get to know the most! The reader get to know a lot about the main character so he isn’t an “stranger” to the reader, but he is an stranger to himself. And this was Camus' point. The character has deep doubts about him even as a person. So, who is “the stranger”?, We Are! Each one of us are an “stranger” to ourselves from time to time.

In the novel, The Stranger is a cynic. He questions society’s authority and doesn’t care for his mother to be alive or death. That is why in these post is the Stranger that one who all the time asks the questions to Mein Kampf for later scorn of his answers. He really don’t care what Mein Kampf has to say at all.

Finally, both the historical “Mein Kampf” and the historical “The Stranger” are literary devices. They are the creations of a human mind. I has used them in here as a literary device in order to bring into these post a new perspective about no just our profession, Our Department, the New Regime, but also about ourself as humans. Better said…as Individuals….yes…that’s is right….because at some point like Soren Kierkegaard said: “We are more individuals than what we are humans”.

Each of us are officers. and yet, behind each uniforms lies a Human, better said: An Individual. Failing to understand and respect this "Individual" as an individual, brings a lot of hostility and unnecesary bickering in our force.

At any rate, hope this help you to see where we are going with this and why not? Get to embrace “The Stranger” within you! …lol lol lol

Best Regard,

Mein Kampf ?

Mein Kampf Fuhrer is a caricature of the WWII nazi personsona yet portrayed as camp humor. Sort of a cross between Col. Klink und Sgt. Schultz.
Of course, Grasshopper was stolen from the Kung Fu television series played so well by David Caradine.
The discourse between Kampf und Der Grasshopper is the 'Fusion' of third reich and Taoism that I referred to.
Danke und Guten Nacht

The Stranger: At least he has “Art” in his copying. He created a dialogue!

Mein Kampf: Well now the question is what is “Art”. This is a historical debate that we wouldn’t settle in here. I see Art as a Contribution to humanity. ///

The 'ART' is in the humor. This trashy yet humorous discourse was of the National Lampoon / Saturday Night Live, genre . While not as lofty as historical Philosophy this genre commands a substantial audience and it's value is to be judged by that audience.

[MEIN KAMPF]

The Stranger: What do you think of the last poster’s approach?

Mein Kampf: Interesting.

The Stranger: Did you notice that he did not say that “Art is Humor” right?

Mein Kampf: Yes. I noticed that, he seems to be too educated to ascertain that. And even more, to his credit he never stated that “Humor is Art”.

The Stranger: No he did not. I think that he is just ascertaining that “Art can contain Humor” which is perfectly truth.

Mein Kampf: Yes. He was also implying that “Art may contain Humor”. Which is also perfectly sound. And yet, he has left very clear that “the value of this Art is to be judged by a particular audience”. This is awful. Because it establishes that the measure of what ought and what ought not to be considered as “Art” is none other than the opinion of the masses.

The Stranger: And? What is wrong with that? Are not “Art” to be considered for the people enjoyment? And if so should not they be their final judges?

Mein Kampf: No. Art is a Contribution to humanity with the purpose to enhance it and elevate it. Art should not be reduced to the category of a gross “Entertainment”. The mob often tents to applauds mostly everything. This was what degenerated the Greek Dramas and theater later on into the gross spectacles of the Roman Circus. Entertainment replaced real Art. This was the result of the populace being the final judges of what is and is not real “Art”.

The Stranger: So, according to you true Art is never entertainment?

Mein Kampf: I did not say that. True Art may/can contain humor, which is Entertainment. But No all Art appeals to entertainment and Humor but to feelings of Amusement and Reflection. I am just very cautious to ascertain that a particular audience should be the final judge of what is real Art.

The Stranger: OK. But going from the general to the particular, the poster did not say all audience in general (although is implied in his argument) . He rather said “that audience” Like referring to a defined particular group of people. Who may not be part of the Mob, but above the Mob, and whose values may be superior and more refined than those of the general populace. In this case, don’t they have the authority to judge an art to be Art for them?

Mein Kampf: No and No. Yes and yes. No, the basis of what is Art is not the private opinion of a select elite in spite of how much informed and educated they might be. The most educated people of the globe carried on the Holocaust in Europe and for them, this aristocratic and educated elite, this was just a noble act. And No, If this particular audience would be as informed as you posses in your argument to be, then they would no confused mere Entertainment for real Art. and If they do, then they proof not to be as real informed audience as they are purported in your argument to be.

Yes, they have the right to choose the value that a particular expression has for them. And Yes, they also have the right to ascertain a particular expression as Humor or no Humor. But as an "Art" is different. Remember the Marquez de Sades, for whom torture and inflicting pain on others was for him pure Art and Entertainment, hence the term “Sadism” or “Sadist”. So, to leave the task to a particular aristocratic elite to decide what is Art or Virtue has resulted in catastrophic consequences.

The Stranger: So you don’t believe in the subjectivity of Art!

Mein Kampf: I do. But as I said, in this, we will not agreed at least in this forum… drive by the Circle, coma back and then we continue unraveling this important conundrum. But for the record, the poster did a great job in chasing this rabbit. By the way...request a case number, we need to write a report about this! lol

Mien Kampf, you realize in this time and age they have twitter available for you. Why don't you use that instead of this? You'll probably get a lot more weird people following you. Learn to spell before you start though. Use Microsoft word. That's available to you too.

WTF